Saturday, March 6, 2010

[rti_india] "Good News" (?) from Delhi High Court

 

An old order I stumbled across. Dont know if its been published elsewhere.
Sarbajit

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

LPA 576/2009

UNION OF INDIA and ORS .....
Appellants
Through Mr. Sachin Datta, Advocate


versus


CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
and ANR .....
Respondents


CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

O R D E R
10.11.2009

CM APPL No. 15944-45/2009

Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.


CM APPL No. 15943 (delay)

1. There is a delay of 168 days in filing this appeal.

2. Having examined the application for condonation of delay, we are not satisfied with the reasons furnished. Despite a copy of the impugned order being available to the Appellant on 11th May 2009, the appeal was filed on 30th October 2009 on the ground that no counsel was nominated by the Central Government to handle the case till then.

3. The application is accordingly dismissed.

LPA No. 576/2009 and CM APPL No. 15942/2009 (stay)

4. Although this appeal is liable to be dismissed consequent upon the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, even on merits we find that this is not a case where the Appellant Union of India should have persisted with the litigation.

5. At the outset it needs to be observed that in UPSC v. Shiv Shambhu 2008 (IX) AD (Delhi) 289 this Court has held that where the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) is challenged, the CIC itself is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Consequently, the CIC is struck off from the array of parties in the present appeal. Accordingly the cause title of the present appeal will read as Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain.


6. The challenge before the learned Single Judge was to an order dated 31st July 2008 passed by the CIC dismissing a petition seeking recall of an earlier order dated 15th May 2008 whereby the CIC had directed the Appellant to issue passports to the Respondent No.2 Dr. Jain, his wife, and his son without delay and also pay the Respondent Dr. Jain compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him.


7. In the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has, after discussing the merits, concluded that although the CIC was justified in issuing directions to the Appellant to issue passports to the Respondent, his wife and son, it erred in directing payment of compensation. Therefore, while setting aside that part of the order of the CIC awarding the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent Dr. Jain within a period of four weeks, the learned Single Judge
awarded Dr. Jain costs of Rs.55,000/-.


8. We do not see any reason why the Union of India should have persisted in filing an appeal when the learned Single Judge has in fact accepted its contention and set aside that part of the order of the CIC which directed the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent Dr. Jain. In our view, since the amount involved was meagre, the Union of India should have in the first place avoided filing even a writ petition. In any event after that part of the order of the CIC was set aside, there was no justifiable reason to challenge the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The costs of Rs.55,000/- levied by the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified and does not call for interference.


9. We are not a little surprised that notwithstanding the concern expressed recently in public by the Attorney General for India about the filling of unnecessary appeals by the Union of India, there are instances like the present one, where to avoid paying Rs.5,000/-, the Union of India persists with litigation, incurring a more expense in the process.


10. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs.20,000/- which will be paid by the Union of India to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks from today. Proof of payment of costs be placed on record within a period of one week thereafter. The application for stay is dismissed.


CHIEF JUSTICE
S. MURALIDHAR, J.

NOVEMBER 10, 2009
rk
LPA No. 576/2009




"

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment